memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Levinius system and Bilaren Prime These pages are misspellings of Livinius and Belarn Prime. The scene mentioning those two planets is from the "Fight or Flight" cut scenes on the ENT Season 1 DVDs. The spelling (Livinius and Belarn Prime) comes from the subtitles of that cut scene. It might be possible, however, that the subtitles are wrong (happens quite often with the DVD subtitles) and Mayweather actually said "Levinius" (a reference to Levinius V) and "Bilaren Prime" (a reference to the Bilaren system). We'd need a script of the episode to verify that, until we can get hold of it, we have to trust the subtitles, I guess. --Jörg 18:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *I think, delete these two. Add notes to Livinius and Levinius V saying that they might be related. Same with Bilaren system and Belarn Prime. --Bp 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *If from a cut scene Delete as non-canon anyway. Aholland 19:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' both. Show no mercy. :P --From Andoria with Love 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'Keep Levinius system' -- its valid as the system Levinius V is actually in, so the article should be rehabbed to reflect that reference. :*'Delete' Bilaren Prime but link to Belarn Prime from the background section of Bilaren system as a possible relation. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ::*About the Levinius system and something general I wanted to ask anyway: Only Levinius V is mentioned in the episode, not the system. Of course, every planet has to be in a star system (except if it is a rogue planet) put Levinius system was not mentioned. Do we create entries for every possible star system or only if it was also mentioned in the episode?--Jörg 10:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ::**in the past, many such entries were created, but without the assumption that the star of the system is named the same (for example: the Bajor system has an unnamed star, but the planets are numbered (Bajor VIII). I guess the system article might only be useful if there was more than one reference -- for example, you'd have to go to the Bajor system article to find a list of planets there. With Levinius, we now have one canon reference (Levinius V) and one "background info" reference that should be linked (the similarity with Livinius). I think the "system" article should remain to alleviate confusion. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': If Livinius and Belarn Prime are only mentioned in scenes cut from the final episode AND their spelling is only known from the notoriously incorrect subtitles, then by all means move information contained on these pages to background sections of pages with a "correct" spelling. These two could then be kept as redirects... -- Cid Highwind 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Andrei Sterling I rewatched "Nightingale" and apart from the Annari Commander and Brell there are no other Annari in the episode. I went to Andrei Sterling's homepage and an appearance in VOY is not listed there. He is also not mentioned on startrek.com or the VOY Companion. Could it be that this information was planted on imdb.com incorrectly and just popped up here as well? --Jörg 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :Has anyone else reviewed the situation? --Jörg 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) :Probably a mistake, much like Bea Arthur. Delete. (We can always restore the article if it turns out to be true.) --From Andoria with Love 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC) : I agree... Delete --Sloan47 08:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC) : Delete. The article is now 100% notices. --Bp 15:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC) ::Also, 1973 productions, Star Trek birthdays, and Nightingale (episode) will all have to be edited if you decide he wasn't in the episode. --Bp 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC) transporters I don't think we really need redirects like this, do we?. It's easy enough to put an "s" on the end of transporter to get transporters, for example. -- Renegade54 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC) *Agree. delete. at worst, you can always use: transporters if need be, not the best way, but works for some instances. -- Sulfur 14:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC) *I think we should keep the redirect, so that someone searching "tranporters" will be seemlessly brought to the correct page. There's no harm in having a redirect, the space used up by it is much less than the space for this discussion :) Jaz talk 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC) *I don't really see a need to remove it. It doesn't meet the qualifications necessary for deletion of a redirect, anyway. Keep. --From Andoria with Love 16:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC) *Seems to meet the requirements to me... nothing links to it at all. Except this page. :) -- Sulfur 20:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC) NCC-63646 This ship does not appear to have any references in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, any appearances on screen where it could be seen, any extant photos of a pysical or CGI model, any references in scripts, or anything anywhere to support its existence at all, much less its existence as a canon ship. Most external sources attribute the ship to a mistaken read of a registry number that has simply persisted over time without basis. Aholland 15:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :From what I read on Ex Astris Scientia it was mentioned in the Star Trek Fact Files -- keep -- Kobi 16:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ::*You might want to reverify and adjust your vote accordingly. this is the only mention of NCC-63646 on the entire Ex Astris Scientia site. It does not mention the Fact Files or any other source for NCC-63646. I had already checked it out there! :) See this for a fuller discussion of the error. Aholland 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :::Delete, but if we do remove it, we should move the note to the Thunderchild ship's page as a note that the registration has been mistaken for 63646 in the particular episode (etc). -- Sulfur 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC) :::Delete and I agree with Sulfur's suggestion - F8street 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC) *If there's absolutely no on-screen reference to this, I don't think we need a separate article about it. We might want to keep the title as a redirect to whatever page should contain the existing information (if any). Basically, I agree with the above suggestion. -- Cid Highwind 09:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC) USS Ganhdi (and Talk:USS Ganhdi) I turned this into a redirect for the time being since it was a spelling mistake meaning to point to USS Gandhi. It came up on the talk page as to whether it was canon or not, which it obviously isn't... but the real USS Gandhi was, as in the one named after the famous fellow from India that had a movie named after him. :) -- Sulfur 01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' or keep as a redirect. The Encyclopedia has "Gandhi", and the script for TNG: "Second Chances" has it as "Gandhi" too. Aholland 02:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC) *Yeah, delete. Sorry - in trying to salvage what anon had created, I didn't notice the typo. I'd delete it myself, but contrary to what some people think (not sure why), I am not - and have never been - an admin. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 03:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC) * Delete. --From Andoria with Love 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC) * Delete. --Sloan47 08:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)